Last Updated on 5 years by Charbel Coorey
Written by Kristopher Hinz
Kris is also a commentator for Flashscore Cricket. You can follow their live ball-by-ball commentary for all international cricket and the IPL. Check them out on Facebook and Twitter
Cricket has changed so much over the years, but one thing has remained constant: the impact of an all-rounder – a player who can turn things around with multiple skills. A genuine all-rounder is so rare that teams end up coveting even the bits-and-pieces players to boost the team’s balance.
When this writer sat down to come up with the three best names to have played Test cricket, it proved to be a tougher task than anticipated. Even if we take out the pretenders, there are enough names to keep us engaged. That made it mandatory to formulate some ground rules.
First and foremost, only those players were selected who can make the final XI on at least two skills. A bowler who can bat or a batsman who can bowl is not something that will make this list. An all-rounder has to be good at both the trades so that he can play as a genuine batsman or a genuine bowler (or genuine wicket-keeper) – genuinely good at two skills. The likes of Kapil Dev and Richard Hadlee might find it tough to make our list, but that’s for later in the article.
Secondly, we are looking at the longevity of the players. Being an all-rounder is a very demanding ask and burns players out. Although we have our sympathies with the tribe, our elite all-rounders are only those who have maintained their skills for long periods of time. This time, it is the turn for the likes of Andrew Flintoff to miss out, whose body denied him a chance to make the list.
Thirdly, we need players who are ‘game-changers’ – those players who can single-handedly change the course of a match and are versatile. Those players who can win sessions on their own with their instinctive play. It could be with the bat or with the ball or even with a spectacular fielding effort. These are the players the captains turn to as an ‘SOS’ option and more often than not, they deliver.
Based on these three rules, the field was narrowed down to Sir Garfield Sobers, Jacques Kallis, and Adam Gilchrist, in no particular order, as the best three all-rounders of all-time.
Also read: 8 of the greatest cricketers of all-time
Sir Garfield Sobers (93 Tests, 8,032 runs @ 57.78, 235 wickets @ 34.03, 109 catches)
Ian Chappell once described Sobers as the ‘best batsman he had ever seen’. Coming from someone who doesn’t praise players easily, that was high praise indeed. The numbers that Sobers stacked up speak volumes of his versatility, especially highlighting the skill of a player who started at no.9 on his debut Test and went on to score the fifth highest individual score ever in Test cricket (365).
Sobers ranks very high on our skills parameter, because he could bowl fast-medium or spin depending on the match situation. He could walk into any side for any of his skills – batting, bowling, fielding, or even as a captain!
As far as longevity is concerned, he had a very successful 20-year stint in the Test arena and 22 years in first-class cricket. In every single game, Sobers played as a genuine all-rounder and that made him very special. He could change his game to suit the needs of his team and this versatility was and is second to none – probably the first of his kind that cricket has seen. In short, he was the first original all-rounder that Test cricket produced.

Jacques Kallis (166 Tests, 13,289 runs @ 55.37, 292 wickets @ 32.65, 200 catches)
Kallis was described by Steve Waugh as the greatest cricketer ever. Waugh said that “You only have to look at the runs he has scored, the wickets and the catches he has taken for South Africa.”
How true! Unlike most of the all-rounders (like Ian Botham, Richard Hadlee, Imran Khan, or even Ben Stokes in recent times), Kallis was a technically brilliant batsman. He brought a very classical approach at the crease and could play any shot from the cricketing manual. To top that, Kallis put a price on his wicket that was often too much and too high for the bowlers. That said, his bowling and slip catching were equally exceptional to land him a spot in any Test side.
He batted at three or four for South Africa throughout his career, was a gun fielder in the slips, and was an impact bowler who never shied away from a spell. Kallis’ longevity should be a case study for all budding all-rounders, especially if you add his equally spectacular ODI career. Further to this, Kallis could morph easily into a Rahul Dravid and blunt the opposition attack, become a Matthew Hayden to slay the bowlers, or be a Steve Waugh to be the team’s messiah. In short, there were very few players who could be as versatile as Kallis was.

Adam Gilchrist (96 Tests, 5,570 runs @ 47.60, 379 catches, 37 stumpings)
Surprised at finding a ‘keeper-batsman in the list? Well, Gilchrist was used to changing the status quo and the game’s orthodoxy, so don’t be. If there was one player who changed the way modern cricket is played, it was him. Before Gilchrist, scoring 250 a day was par score in Test cricket. Gilchrist made it 150 a session!
He was the quintessential ‘in your face’ cricketer, whom the bowlers feared. There wasn’t a set template to bowl at Gilchrist, which made him difficult to bowl to. There wasn’t a shot that you could anticipate from Gilchrist, which made it even more difficult – almost impossible, when he was in full flow.
Just like any other all-rounder, Gilchrist was worth his salt in both his skills. He could play as a genuine batsman or a pure ‘keeper on any given day in any conditions. There isn’t any question about his longevity either, as he was a genuine all-rounder from day one of his Test career. His versatility coming in lower down the order was brutally efficient, as he could camouflage into any requirement and make it his own. Mind you, it wasn’t always ‘bang bang’ because Gilchrist was as much a brainy cricketer as he was a brawny one.
That ends the short list of three best all-rounders Test cricket has seen. There’s bound to be some heartburn over the absence of Imran Khan, Richard Hadlee, Kapil Dev, or Sir Ian Botham, but each of them fell a tiny bit short on the parameters. While Imran lacked the longevity on his multiple skills to be considered, Hadlee or Kapil didn’t quite make the grade as genuine batsmen, while Botham’s versatility to be a match-saver sold him short.
Agree with our parameters and the final selections? Join the argument and let us know your thoughts!
Written by Kristopher Hinz
Kris is also a commentator for Flashscore Cricket. You can follow their live ball-by-ball commentary for all international cricket and the IPL. Check them out on Facebook and Twitter